Strict Liability. I shall look at different cases in order to justify whether the offence of strict liability is effective in promoting greater vigilance.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

﻿According to the criminal law, the actus reus and the mens rea are general requirements to constitute a criminal offence; however, where the offence is of strict liability, there is no requirement for the proof of mens rea. The negation of mens rea means that an individual may be convicted regardless of their mental state, whether they behaved reasonably or not. This has stirred up much debate on the justification of a strict liability offence as some view it as necessary to ?promote the objects of the statute? and is a matter of ?social concern?; whilst others have taken the view that strict liability is too strict an offence and should be abolished. In this answer, I shall look at different cases in order to justify whether the offence of strict liability is effective in promoting greater vigilance. Firstly, statutes often contain unambiguous wordings in guiding courts as to whether mens rea is required in the interpretation of statutes. The courts then has the discretion to determine whether there should be a presumption of mens rea in establishing an offence; the courts must consider a few factors in determining whether the offence of strict liability should be inferred from the statute. ...read more.

Middle

The courts are unlikely to give a strict liability sentence but rather they are more likely to read in the requirement of mens rea. In the case of Sweet v Parsley, a woman let her farmhouse to students; upon investigation by the police, cannabis was found. Although the woman had no reason to know that there was cannabis present in her property, she was convicted under strict liability as no mens rea was required. However the House of Lords held that the stigma attached to drugs was too grave, thus mens rea should be read in. Therefore, there should be a presumption of mens rea and so Sweet?s criminal conviction was quashed. It was also held that where the offence was of a great concern to society, the courts are unlikely to read in the requirement of mens rea, but instead give a sentence of strict liability. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain, a pharmacist was presented a forged prescription by the patient, nevertheless the pharmacist supplied the patient with the drugs. ...read more.

Conclusion

Convictions would also be held where an individual had not acted unreasonably and have exercised reasonable care. Furthermore, it has been viewed to be unjust in convicting individuals who were completely unaware that an offence is being completed, such as in Pharmaceutical. Plus, a conviction under strict liability would not be an effective deterrent because defendants may very well be unaware that an offence is being completed, therefore they will be unable to take steps to prevent it anyways. The element of overdeterrence associated with a strict liability conviction discourages people from engaging in socially beneficial commercial activities. To conclude, although convictions under strict liability may seem unfair, it is ultimately necessary to protect the public from potential harm should the offence have occurred. The fact that a high standard of care is required means that society would be better protected from harms such as pollution and drunk driving. The fact that a conviction under strict liability does not require mens rea means that the law would be more easily enforced and so prevent those who have participated in a dangerous act to escape liability. ...read more.

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

In Lipman (1970) D killed his girlfriend after a bad LSD trip. He was convicted of manslaughter because it had been an unlawful act resulting in death for which voluntary intoxication was not a defence and this was a reckless course of conduct.

The second presumption being that if the offence is 'truly criminal,' as per the case of B V DPP, then judges will decide it not one of the strict liability offences. The third presumption being that the offence is a statutory offence and it must be clear and have an implication of the effect of a statute.

The acts were more than merely preparatory to the commission of the intended offence and therefore he should be punished as if the package really contained the drugs. Lack of punishment for a genuine attempt to commit a criminal offence will in some cases give incentive and opportunity for the

Well known cases illustrating the human rights act 1998 The first case involving the human rights act was Lee Clegg (2000) in this case excessive media coverage of the trial threatened to breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6.

She claimed to have lacked the mens rea for theft, on the basis of absent mindedness caused by diabetes and depression. She had no recollection of putting the items into her bag. She didn?t even want the mincemeat as neither her nor her husband ate it.

is transferred to the actual victim. This was illustrated in R v Latimer where A went to hit B with a belt which recoiled and hit C instead. Latimer?s intent to harm was transferred to C. The actus reus and the mens rea must still coincide so where A plans

However, should religious grounds be enough to make the defendant liable for the consequence and not just the act committed? Here, the case of Deer could be relevant, as the defendant was still guilty even though the victim?s acts could have saved their life.